Case Comment
National Research Development Corporation's Application (Australia)
citation(s): [1961] R.P.C. 135 (per Dixon, C.J.)
Case Comment |
National Research Development Corporation's Application (Australia)citation(s): [1961] R.P.C. 135 (per Dixon, C.J.) |
copyright 1997 Donald M. Cameron, Aird & Berlis
At p. 145:
"The point is that a process, to fall within the limits of patentability which the context of the Statutes of Monopolies has supplied, must be one that offers some advantage which is material, in the sense that the process belongs to a useful art as distinct from a fine art (see Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corporation's Application, [1958] R.P.C. 35 at p. 36) - that its value to the country is in the field of economic endeavour. (The exclusion of methods of surgery and other processes for treating the human body may well lie outside the concept of invention because the whole subject is conceived as essentially non-economic: see Maeder v. Busch (1938), 59 C.L.R. 684 at p. 706.)"
Return to:
Cameron's IT Law: Home Page; Index
Cameron's Canadian Patent & Trade Secrets Law: Home Page; Index